So like the title asks, can you make a full attack with a rod of withering?
the weapon says it functions like a +1 light mace that deals d4 str and d4 con damage instead of regular damage on a failed save. It also says that you make melee touch attacks with it?
Since it functions like a light mace, can I make iterative attacks on a full attack with it?
nope function as light mace +1 is just for proficiencies and the +1 you can add to your attack roll, can't make iterative attacks, says you can make a melee touch attack "singular"
EDIT
heh actually you can full attack with it like a light mace +1 but as it says you do no damage hehehe.
I would say yes you can full attack with it.
The item has the language saying it acts as a +1 Light Mace, and nothing about it requiring a standard action or spell to be cast for it to work.
A fighter at level 20 that was hasted could attack five times. And if he hit five times the target would get five fort saves at DC17. For each save that failed the target would take 1d4STR and 1d4CON damage... if if the hit was a crit then it would be 1d4STR and 1d4CON Drain.
I would say yes you can full attack with it.
The item has the language saying it acts as a +1 Light Mace, and nothing about it requiring a standard action or spell to be cast for it to work.
A fighter at level 20 that was hasted could attack five times. And if he hit five times the target would get five fort saves at DC17. For each save that failed the target would take 1d4STR and 1d4CON damage... if if the hit was a crit then it would be 1d4STR and 1d4CON Drain.
"Instead, the wielder deals 1d4 points of Strength damage and 1d4 points of Constitution damage to any creature she touches with the rod (by making a melee touch attack)"
I've gotta lean with the fact it says attack not attacks ;)
that and the fact a 25'000gp magical weapon that in the hand of the right person could deliver ~6d4STR and ~6d4CON or more with crits on a full attack.
on a tangent I could see a non RAW argument for allowing multiple attacks to increase the Fort DC by +2 for each successful hit
I would say yes you can full attack with it.
The item has the language saying it acts as a +1 Light Mace, and nothing about it requiring a standard action or spell to be cast for it to work.
A fighter at level 20 that was hasted could attack five times. And if he hit five times the target would get five fort saves at DC17. For each save that failed the target would take 1d4STR and 1d4CON damage... if if the hit was a crit then it would be 1d4STR and 1d4CON Drain.
"Instead, the wielder deals 1d4 points of Strength damage and 1d4 points of Constitution damage to any creature she touches with the rod (by making a melee touch attack)"
I've gotta lean with the fact it says attack not attacks ;)
that and the fact a 25'000gp magical weapon that in the hand of the right person could deliver ~6d4STR and ~6d4CON or more with crits on a full attack.
on a tangent I could see a non RAW argument for allowing multiple attacks to increase the Fort DC by +2 for each successful hit
I would probably say that you can full attack but the effect doesn't stack with itself.
Edit: Actually, no I wouldn't say it doesn't stack with itself... But full attacking with it is pretty deadly. I'd have to think about this one. And remember, if you can do it to a monster, an NPC can do it to you...
Yes give me multiple fortitude saves. I'm game. I won't even touch the weapon after the fight in fact -- after all it is completely useless against undead, constructs and almost all other monsters considering the low low low DC on that effect.
And yes you can full attack with it -- it's a light mace with alternate damage -- as such it is a weapon and provided you have enough BAB to have iterative attacks you can full attack with any weapon.
"Instead, the wielder deals 1d4 points of Strength damage and 1d4 points of Constitution damage to any creature she touches with the rod (by making a melee touch attack)"
I've gotta lean with the fact it says attack not attacks ;)
Then no weapon can be used for a full attack since they all say they deal 'x' damage by making an attack.
Honestly...
Aura strong necromancy; CL 13th
Slot none; Price 25,000 gp; Weight 5 lbs.
DESCRIPTION
A rod of withering acts as a +1 light mace that deals no hit point damage. Instead, the wielder deals 1d4 points of Strength damage and 1d4 points of Constitution damage to any creature she touches with the rod (by making a melee touch attack). If she scores a critical hit, the damage from that hit is permanent ability drain. In either case, the defender negates the effect with a DC 17 Fortitude save.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Rod, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, contagion; Cost 12,500 gp
It's a mace that does 1d4 STR and 1d4Con dmg using a touch attack...a 20th level fighter can deliver multiple touch attacks...or a monk could flurry if the mace was a monk weapon...
** spoiler omitted **
It's a mace that does 1d4 STR and 1d4Con dmg using a touch attack...a 20th level fighter can deliver multiple touch attacks...or a monk could flurry if the mace was a monk weapon...
flurry for 11d4STR and 11d4DEX
k then ;)
** spoiler omitted **
It's a mace that does 1d4 STR and 1d4Con dmg using a touch attack...a 20th level fighter can deliver multiple touch attacks...or a monk could flurry if the mace was a monk weapon...
flurry for 11d4STR and 11d4DEX
k then ;)
Yes and that would require two of the weapon and each hit would allow a DC 17 save for ZERO damage. At level 20 a DC 17 save is only failed on a 1 for any creature.
For a level 10 monster the average save for a good save is +13 and a poor save is +9 per the monster creation chart. Meaning that only one in about four attacks that actually hits will do any damage at all.
The rod is fairly weak with a limited purpose at lower levels and a poor combat choice at medium to higher levels.
That being said this can be a fun item and good for RP with some characters for sure... but it is not an over powered item and mostly harmless in the hands of a player long term.
Wasn't there a thread awhile ago about touch attacks where one of the devs chimed in that touch attacks weren't necessarily the same as a regular attack? Basically the wording of the mace could also mean "when you take a standard action to use the magical property of the mace, you can make a touch attack and deal no damage with the mace but instead cause ability damage."
So...
You can get 1 touch attack as a standard action.
You can full attack against normal AC
All hits get a save vs damage/drain.
Sounds reasonably fair, especially when you consider that even if every strike hits they can be saved against. And by the time the players get one, most monsters will make most of their saves (DC17 and monsters seem to favor high fort)
I vote full attack.
And no, it's not overpowered. The save DC sucks.
So...
You can get 1 touch attack as a standard action.
You can full attack against normal AC
All hits get a save vs damage/drain.
.
Sounds reasonably fair, especially when you consider that even if every strike hits they can be saved against. And by the time the players get one, most monsters will make most of their saves (DC17 and monsters seem to favor high fort)
Again depending on the intent, the wording could also possibly mean the rod is a light mace (for purposes of proficient/feats/etc) can be used as a normal mace to make normal damaging attacks, when not being used as a "rod." The possibility existing that the use of draining attacks is limited to once per round, when being used as a Rod of Withering via standard action.
Abilities that can be used as a normal or touch attack, typically have it called out. Use this way (touch AC) with this effect OR take a heftier penalty (melee attack) with this effect. The rod doesn't have that. Not to mention if if were intended to be a weapon, usable on every attack, why wasn't it listed in the actual magical weapons listing? Magic items have set use action economy, with few exceptions, a magical item requires a standard action to activate and get the benefit/effect. If it were intended to be a use activated item, it makes far more sense to toss it in with all the other named weapon/use action items.
To me it looks like you could full attack with it. Agree with those who posted the Save DC won't be high enough to be worthwhile for when the PC could afford it.
I'd still ban the item since I would not want to have to put up with the number slogging from PCs semi-frequently dealing stat damage.
so basically the point is mute.
you won't see the rod till at least 8th level
by then most monster have enough of a fort save the DC17 is 50% success rate.
at the same time a full attack monk is only 4 attacks
meaning on average assuming you land 4 attack which at below 10th even with touch attacks is not garenteed you get 3-4 hits requiring 3-4 saves and 1-2 failures
15th level 6-8 attacks, Fort saves are around +12 give or take, 5 or better to pass DC17, 20% fail rates, plus you might still miss one attack
your looking at ~1 failed save
so either way its not really doing jack, its just doing slightly more jack than a single attack.
heh could save alot of effort using this if you rewrite the rod to
"special ability make single touch attack per round, if it hits 1d4str 1d4con no save."
heh could save alot of effort using this if you rewrite the rod to
"special ability make single touch attack per round, if it hits 1d4str 1d4con no save."
At which point it would be completely overpowered...
At which point it would be completely overpowered...
heh could save alot of effort using this if you rewrite the rod to
"special ability make single touch attack per round, if it hits 1d4str 1d4con no save."
hardly, enervation is more powerful and just as easy to get at a similar level
hardly, enervation is more powerful and just as easy to get at a similar levelAt which point it would be completely overpowered...
heh could save alot of effort using this if you rewrite the rod to
"special ability make single touch attack per round, if it hits 1d4str 1d4con no save."
Because enervation works on a constant basis and can be applied repeatedly every round without limit. Obviously your idea of balance is slightly more... skewed than mine?